PREMWATI Vs. N D M C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter had come up before the Court on 7.7.2004 when a request was made by Ms.Shashi Pradhan on behalf of Mr.K.K.Sharma, counsel for the petitioner that latter was out of station and the matter be adjourned. At the request of Ms.Shashi Pradhan, the matter was kept for today for hearing. The matter was called out in the morning but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The matter has been called again after lunch when none appears on behalf of the petitioner. In these circumstances I proceed to decide the matter on the basis of record and the documents as filed. THIS petition has been filed by Smt.Premwati widow of late Shri Jai Narayan Sharma and Shri Jitender Sharma son of late Shri Jai Narayan Sharma seeking writ of mandamus for compassionate appointment for petitioner No.2 i.e. the son . The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, Shri Jai Narayan Sharma expired on 23.11.1999. It is claimed in the petition that petitioner No.2 is living along with his mother and his younger brother. He is the only hope for providing livelihood for the family of the deceased. Counter affidavit has been filed. It has been brought out in the counter affidavit that apart from petitioner No.2, the deceased left behind four sons two of whom are elder to petitioner No.2. One is in Government job and other is having grocery shop. The eldest son is employed with Haryana Tourism Department. The widow is also getting the pension of Rs.4,363/- per month. The case of the petitioner had been duly considered for appointment on compassionate ground by the Committee. The Committee considered the merits of individual cases on the basis of enquiry report and recommended names of the candidates whom it found eligible and fit for appointment on compassionate ground covering the period of death from 1.1.1997 to 30.9.2001. Petitioner's case was duly considered and he was not recommended for appointment. The respondents have further pointed out that petitioner No.2 who is seeking compassionate appointment is a Post-graduate and is qualified enough to fend for himself and get employment. He is not entitled to any compassionate appointment, the entire purpose for which is to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased to overcome the financial burden following the death of bread earner. In the instant case four years have passed since the death of father of petitioner No.2. Other members of the family i.e. sons of deceased are well settled. Petitioner no.1, as noted gets family pension. In view of the foregoing discussions, I find no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.